DeSmog Leaks Advance Copy of Think Tank's IPCC Attack
UPDATED: with details of the Fraser Institute's planned press conference
The Fraser Institute will release their report in London on Feb.5. Here are the details for our UK friends who might be interested in attending:
Date: February 5, 2007
Time: 10am (London time)
Location: The Atrium Restaurant (across from the Houses of Parliament), Four Millbank, Westminster
UPDATE: I've just uploaded a new version of the briefing note, without hyperlinks for those who want to print off a copy. Titled "print version." (KG)
Fraser Institute “Analysis” of IPCC Report Out of Date, Oil-Soaked and Incorrect
A Canadian think tank’s “independent” analysis of the upcoming IPCC report is based on out-of-date information and is specifically misleading about the nature of the scientific summary that it presumes to criticize, DeSmogBlog.com President James Hoggan said Wednesday. The Fraser Institute had planned to release their report Feb.5, at a press conference in the United Kingdom.
The Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank that has recently received annual grants from oil-giant ExxonMobil, promised an independent summary of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Institute claimed that the IPCC’s own summary is a political document “neither written by nor reviewed by the scientific community,” while the Fraser Institute version was “prepared by qualified experts in fields related to climate science.”
In fact, the IPCC summary was written and reviewed by some of the most senior climate scientists in the world, without political or bureaucratic input . And the Fraser Institute’s “scientific” staff – which is led by an economist – includes a group of junior or retired scientists, most of whom have direct connections to energy industry lobby groups (see attached briefing note).
Dr. Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis and a lead IPCC author, called the Independent Summary “highly ideological.” While the Fraser Institute summary says, "There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway," Weaver counters: “The IPCC report presents 1,600 pages of compelling evidence, that’s the whole point.”
Weaver also criticized the Fraser Institute’s contention that climate change may not be happening or that if it is happening, it may be “a good or bad thing.”
Finally, Weaver pointed out that the whole Fraser Institute analysis is based on a document that is almost a year out of date. “I was most surprised that this analysis was written based on our second draft” (released in Spring 2006), said Weaver. “We incorporated changes in response to well over 1,000 reviewrs' comments before preparing a final draft last fall.”
A complete copy of the Fraser Institute report is attached below.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| draft fraser institute report IPCC small.pdf | 1.22 MB |
| DeSmogBlog note on the fraser institute.pdf | 197.58 KB |
| Fraser Inst Press Release.pdf | 33.97 KB |
| Print version DeSmog fraser institute briefing note.pdf | 177.49 KB |
| ONE PAGE VERSION Fraser Inst Press Release.pdf | 37.13 KB |
Hurricane Gustav
Hello!!! Last time I checked and subscribed to the Fraser Institute of Myopic verbiage it was still chasing it's tail in circles, with cute latin 'esque'. Wake up and get relevant!
K.L.
Let's Get Matters Straight
Richard Littlmore,
Can you tell me precisely what isn't 'independant' about The Fraser Institutes report?
They're not beholden to political masters like the IPCC are they and they're not excetly rolling in oil money are they?
You say it's 'Out of Date and Oil-Soaked' but didn't the IPCC 4 Synthesis 2007 Report guilotine science in 2005. Not exactly bang up to date is it! More accurate to call it the Synthesis 2005 Report if we're being pedandtic about things and in search of accuracy would you agree?
And it's 'oil soaked'. How much money precisely?
Your esteemed President James Hoggan is on the 'balmy' Suzuki Foundation. Isn't that funded by 1 energy company and no less than 2 oil companies?
Kirk to Enterprise!!!!
Hello Richard Littlmore,
I asked you a question??
Is the Suzuki Foundation not funded by 1 energy company and 2 oil companies???
Is Mr James Hoggan your esteemed president and Demosblog founder therefore, by your own rules, 'oil soaked' ?
Come in Scotty.. are you there!!
These are the guys dishing
Reminiscent of Kent Hovind's
These are the guys dishing
RealClimate on the F.I. draft:
RealClimate trashes the January 8 draft of the Fraser Institute's puny effort at this link.
"...There are so many bizarre statements in the Fraser Institute report that some of us think that spotting them could serve as a good final exam in an elementary course on climate change. Take your pick. The report states that "The IPCC gives limited consideration to aerosols ..." whereas aerosols have been a key part of the scenarios since the Second Assessment Report, were the key to explaining the interrupted mid-century warming, and cannot in any way be mangled so as to spuriously give the warming of the past decades. The ISPM regales us with tales of natural global warming in the distant past, without pointing out that these happened over millions of years, had often massive consequences nonetheless, and were linked to processes like continental drift which are unlikely to be part of the explanation of the recent warming. The Fraser report describes the climate changes of the past century as "minor" (a value-laden and subjective term if ever there was one), failing to realize that climate change so far has been the fire alarm, not the fire. The climate of 2100 is not forecast to be mild..."
Aww, Where'd they go?
I was starting to enjoy this debate.
You don't think they finally saw reason, do you?
Still here, buddy,
FI media advisory about tomorrow
Fraser Institute has put out a media advisory; that it will not admit reporters without media ID:
Link to media release
Link found at
Buckdog
and at:
POGGE
Real scientist
Not what I call a real scientist
J I K you are obviously not a scientist. Scientists are (or used to be before some turned to a lesser but older profession) one of the most honest groups of people around. Funny that the only link you could post contained two of the most dishonest people around, Lindzen and Inhofe.
And in case you didn't see the programme with Nye and Lindzen, it was Lindzen that offered the bet, a bet that he had better honour since he was so obviously wrong in his statement that the ice-core data had less than a 2000 year resolution. I'm sure he knew better but was of the opinion that he could fool the audience and Larry King.
Exxon, dishonest...
Interesting that you mentioned Exxon
J I K, why did you bring up Exxon, I never mentioned them? Was it a case of if the shoe fits wear it?
I have no problems with people who have differing opinions than mine. What I disagree with totally is when these people distort the truth.
You keep bringing up the subject of ad hominems in just about everyone of your posts. I would suggest that you find out what it atually means since I have not see any actual ad hominems in this whole thread.
Just consider this headline
Just consider these words:
"The science deniers here continue to spread the lie...."
Do they sound like the beginning of a "real" argument?. No they don't. They sound like the beginning words of a German or Bolshevik political screed, c.1930. Or something out of the mouth of the lovely President Ahmedinejad. They're your first words in this discussion, Johan.
Now consider these words:
"Funny that the propaganda machine..."
Much better? They're how you chose to introduce your second "argument", Johan. Except it wasn't really an argument, was it, Johan? It was a snide, sarcastic comment. Some might say even a touch ad hominem, no?
Then, before anyone had a chance to respond, you issued a third statement:
"Smear but absolutely no substance. Not one factual or scientific argument, only ad hominem attacks....Pathetic. Then again, that is to be expected, I suppose, from shallow propagandists."
Johan, were these words intended to spur a healthy debate? You seem to have arrived at your conclusion without engaging in any discussion. Then you did some more namecalling.
You must surely admit that this is a pretty reprehensible debating style.
Now consider these words
"...IPCC report is a scientific report. It is not, it is a political report, written by politicians, for political purposes."
This is more an assertion than an argument, but either way, it's wrong. The Summary for Policy Makers is produced in part by governmental representatives, as well as technical experts. However the technical reports on which they're based are written exclusively by experts and is extensively reviewed, again by experts.
"Funny that the propaganda machine (incl desmogblog) has to start even before the IPCC political climate fear report has been released. Is the report that weak on substance?"
I detect no "real argument" here. However, I do find it interesting that you're calling it the "political climate fear report", even before it's been released. Have you drawn your conclusions a little early?
"Not one factual or scientific argument, only ad hominem attacks. That is the entire scope of desmogblog's criticism of the Fraser report."
Again, wrong. Look:
While the Fraser Institute summary says, "There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway," Weaver counters: “The IPCC report presents 1,600 pages of compelling evidence, that’s the whole point.”
Interesting. Looks like substance. Looks like a "real argument". And found right here on desmogblob. This very page, in fact. And there's more up there, too. The wonder of it all...
THere. You got your "real argument". Face the facts, Johan. You're not really very smart, are you. Or maybe your just a juvenile sh!t-disturber. I don't care which because you lost this debate. Badly. I know it, you know. Everyone on desmogblog knows it. You're nothing but a troll. Think about it.
No real arguments here
The models don't prove AGM
It's nice to see that the
Here is an example of an ad hom
J I K , you are stupid and everything you say is garbage.
It is also true.
gnothi seauton
You are not worth debating
J I K show that you are willing to debate in a reasonable fashion and people might alter their opinion of you. As far as I am concerned people like you are not willing to debate facts but are only willing to regurgitate talking points that you have found on right wing anti-science sites. You have added nothing to the threads on this site except for ant-science and ad hominen attacks.
Please grow up or seek another outlet for your juvenile ranting.
I'm not even young
I don't know who JIK is or
Supporting AGW is not anti-science
ZOG, please tell me what is anti-science about supporting AGW. The IPCC process is exactly how good science should be considered and reported. 2500 scientists who are considered experts in their field by their peers were asked to review all the science reported in the scientific peer reviewed literature. They then used their considerable experience and expertise to pare it down to approximately 1000 pages (the anticipated length of the WG1 report which will be released shortly).
Sure, bureaucrats and government appointees review the reports and summaries but the scientists still have the last word.
If you are "pro-science" as you seem to imply, why not discuss some of the science, I'd be glad to hear your "scientific opinions" on various aspects of AGW. There is still lots of room for serious discussion on some of the minor aspects of the subject which knowledgeable scientists are working on at present.
However, if you show disrespect to the science then it is no wonder that people are uncivil to you since they are responding in exactly the same way you have responded to them. It is always the non-scientists who claim to "know everything" who are the most disrespectful, in my opinion.
So go ahead, start discussing the science.
Attack the person
One more time please
Wow! Can we have this ad hominem argument one more time please (sarcasm). Sorry, Johan, but when we discredit an argument here on DeSmog by pointing to their vested interests (i.e. funding from ExxonMobil) it is not Ad Hominem, it is context important to the public discourse.
Ad Hominem!
Better link
Real arguments
Real Arguments
Johan, there are several real arguments in the comments directly above the one in which you said real arguments are entirely absent. There are also several links to other sources with real arguments that you have not addressed. And if the FI receives funding from Exxon, that most certainly is relevant information to desmogblog's thesis.
Johan, you can't or won't address the real arguments that have been presented to you. You haven't advanced any "real arguments" of your own. You've made no attempt at fair argumentation. You can go on saying that black is white and up is down, but sooner or later you'll be confronted with one inescapable reality:
You're a pseudo-skeptical troll with no defensible position of your own and only take a sick pleasure in namecalling and taunting people with the courage to take up real positions on a matter of great import to us all. Proud?
Please read
Why? Because you are too
I read them indeed
You are right, Johan...
Since my comments on this
News Article on the SPM process
News article on the SPM process
Theft
Changing the Subject
Not at all
Ahh, theft is no biggie,
Smear but
Your response indicates that
Your response indicates that you are either not interested in the truth or are too lazy to do any research. However, I on your behalf did the work (about 30 seconds using google).
From the UCS website
"However, government representatives do participate in the line-by-line review and revision of the much shorter summary for policymakers, or SPM, for each technical report. The SPM is written by the working group’s lead authors, reviewed in two stages by technical experts, and finally by government representatives before being accepted at the working group’s plenary session. Each SPM is released separately over the course of several months."
SPM means summary for policy makers not by policymakers. They do, however, get the opprotunity to review the summary. Which seem fair.
More on the AR4 process can be found at
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html#IPCC_Structure
I see no ad hominen on this thread only justifable contempt.
Well actually
Summary for Policy makers
Fit the facts to the policy
If the IPCC is political
Sorry, Johan,
but we get tired of being right all the time.
But if you insist on having a fact, try this: Not one factual or scientific argument, only ad hominem attacks. That is the entire scope of your criticsm of desmogblog. Pathetic.